How were locos allocated to sheds?

[The Johnster]

Been thinking about this a bit lately; my mind on Tondu's 94xx but it led to Tondu's locos and the more general question.  Studying RailUK and the John Hodges/Stuart Davies books has thrown up some anomalies; where in doubt I refer to Rule 1 in leiu of photographic evidece.  There are some perceptible mistakes in Hodges/Davies, date misprints and such.

 

Tondu had an allocation of brand new 94xx in 1954, date significant because it postdates the 1953 introduction, or extension, of auto working in the area, which it used, according to Hodge/Stuart, almost exclusively on passengeer work, photos in their books backing this assertion up.  94xx are not generally considered passenger locos but they were capable of the work, especially in South Wales where the ability to pull trains up steep hills is more important than steady riding at speed, so, ok, I get that, but what about the 57xx/8750s at the shed, which were also used for passenger work but did their bit on yard pilot and mineral duites as well; what was it about the 94xx that engendered their different use?  There must have been a reason that 57xx/8750 were preferred to 94xx for mineral and shunitng work, or one that made 94xx particularly suited to TDU's passenger trains, but I can't see what it could have been.

 

Tondu had some odd allocations, and the reason for some of them was obvious enough.  2 44xx lived here prior to the 1953 auto proliferation for the very sharply curved Porthcawl branch, with a 45xx in reserve; auto fitted 4575s appeared in '53 to work the new autos.  Also in connection with the Porthcawl branch, the shed had in pre-WW2 times hosted outside framed 4-4-0s for the Porthcawl-Cardiff through commuter trains, but these were withdrawn during the war, then reinstated in 1946.  The shed got Collett 1938 31xx 3100 and a 5101, claimed by Hodge/Davies to have been 4144 but listed by RailUK as 4145 (4144 was xfer TDU in 1958) to  work them.  Makes sense.  But, while 31xx stayed on that job regularly intil it was withdrawn in 1959, 4144 or was it 4145 was transferred away in March 31st 1948 according to RailUK, and there was no 5101 at TDU until 4144 definitely 4144 this time, showed up in the autumn of 1958, though this is not what is stated in Hodges/Davies.  The books contain several shots of 4144, but all are dated post 1958.

 

But what about 6762, allox brand new in 1947?  This was a non-vacuum fitted 6750, a variant of the 8750 class similar to the 67xx variant of the 57xx.  These steam brake only locos were mostly allox to docks work, and in South Wales were found at Cardiff East Dock, Newport Pill, and Swansea East Depot.  Why would TDU want a pannier they couldn't use on a passenger train?  Does the answer lie in 6762's laterally jointed coupling rods, designed for tight curvature on docks lines, with the Porthcawl pickup in mind?  Hodge/Davies don't mention this loco at all, nor the 3 350hp diesel shunting engines* (08) allox TDU 1954 according RailUK.  6762 was xfer Swansea East Depot, a more likely location for it, in '56.

 

4557 is another one; one sees no real use for it after the 1953 auto expansion;  the 44xx were xfer away or scrapped and did not need backing up.  The loco was eventually, 1957, xfer Whitland for a short period which may have been a 'paper transfer', then back to TDU, then back to Whitland. 

 

The 4575s were xfer away after the closure of the Abergwynfi auto service in 1960, as with only the Porthcawl branch left for auto work, 64xx were deemed capable of handling the loadings, usually 3 trailer sandwiches.  This makes sense at least.

 

What, out of interest, was the procedure within the loco department by which a locomotive was allocated to a shed anyway?  Did Higher Authority dole them out, and you had to get on with what It sent you In It's Greater Wisdom, like it or lump it, or were local Shedmasters' requests taken note of?  Or was it a mixture of the two?   I imagine shortages of preferred types played a part either way, for example it's pretty obvious that TDU never had enough 4575s for it's auto work pre 1960, as trailers hauled by 57xx or 8750 feature qutie a bit in photos,,  There must've been a shortage of 64xx as well because none were drafted in pre-1960 to work the Porthcawl branch, which would have released a 4575 for duty in the mountain fastnesses.  Nantymoel closed in 1953 so was not really a factor in auto work, but Blaengarw lasted until 58. 

 

This is the sort of thing Mike Stationmaster knows all about, and I'm sure he will be able to put me straight on the matter.  Locos were withdrawn from service for overhaul or dismantling/scrapping on a mileage basis, but was the decision taken to scrap before withdrawal, at the shed, or at arrival at Swindon, perhaps after an examination to assess how far the locos was gone (I'm not talking about post 1955 modernisation plan scrapping here, in which locos were withdrawn from service and put out to tender for cutting up by scrap dealers direct from their sheds).

 

* Assuming the RailUK information to be correct, these locos would have most probably been utilised on pilot duty at South Yard, Ogmore Jc yard or Bryncethin Jc, all within yards of the shed. I have therefore decided not to buy one for Cwmdimbath; even by the standards of a modeller who allows a daily visit by a Barry 82xxx this is pushing Rule 1 too far...

Mind you, if one comes up at the right price...

 

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect you might be starting, or looking at it, from the wrng end of the telescope.    The need for a loco depot, and then its allocation of engines was driven largely by expected levels of treaffic and then the allocation was adjusted to reflect actual traffic demands.  Thos traffic demands were boiled down intoa  timetable (by the operating/traffic dept) who did their best to produce what the commercial depts said was needed or what they expected to be needed.

 

So as far as allocation of engines, and number of enginemen at a depot was concerned the nitty gritty started with the timetable.  On the GWR the CME's Dept took the timetable and calculated from it the most efficient and cost effective way of resourcing that timetable which led to them producing diagrams for the working of both engines and enginemen (the engine diagrams were done first then the men's working was built around and from the engine diagrams).  

 

After nationalisation it began to change with the first change being the separation of the works part of the CME's responsibility and the rearrangement of part of his former responsibility into the R&M dept (Running and Maintenance Dept) - which henceforth controlled the depots as far as the running element was concerned - i.e. it was then responsible for preparing and issuing diagrams for both engines and enginemen.

 

All the way through this the traffic/operating dept was writing the timetables and, as far as passenger trains wetre concerned, was also preparing the coach working (diagrams) and the Guards' diagrams.  Hence the engine working might vary from the coach working (or freight brakevan working) and the Guard's working could be different from that of the enginemen he was working with during any particular part of his turn.

 

The next stage, running very much in parallel with dieselisation was to transfer the diagramming of engines and enginemen to the operating dept so it ended up doing all the diagramming work - which later led to further changes such as synchronising Guards' and Drivers' diagrams.   So now the operating dept was effectively specifying how many engines of a particular capability needed to do the work allocated to any depot whereas previously one office in the R&M Dept had told another office in that Dept how many engines of what capabilities it needed at any particular depot.

 

With steam, far more so than with diesels, there had to be at any depot an allowance of additional engines above the diagrammed level to cover maintenance - which took longer with steam.  And steam engines had limitations on the length of day the could work before they needed coal and ash clearance so the allocation took all of that into account in arriving at the mix of types and total number of engines at any depot.   Which brings you back to where you started - need for push-pull engines capable of a certain level of output means an allocation of such engines (the 44XX and the 4575).  Logically they would remain at the depot until the need for them ceased to exist but other areas of logic then come in -  so the 44XX are life expired, are up on their mileage limits and their work has gone and there is no demand for them elsewhere, they can go off to be converted into razor blades and so take them off the books where they reperesnt a charge.  The 4575 isn't needed anywhere else, for now, and might still be found some work of some sort at the shed so it is left there until a need arisses elsewhere or it too is due overhaul or is life expired,  It might not be doing much but there's no need to send it away if it might occasionally have some work (maybe even only a couple of days a week) or it can stay at the shed in store until needed elsewhere.

 

Similarly the work for different types of engine change over the years as traffic patterns change.  So if Shed B still has a need to work lots of loose coupled freights or needs freight shunting pilots it makes no difference getting an engine without a continuous brake that is no longer needed at Shed A and might perhaps need to see out its mileage.  So a decline in work in one place can release engines which still have some life in them and can be sent to wherever there is suitable work - the R&M chaps will decide in conjunction with whatever the works has to say about the life (mileage) left in that engine.   And don't forget that the railway was contracting, at an ever increasing rate from the mid 1950s onwards as lines closed and traffic was lost.  

 

Similarly why not a 94XX - it was really no more than a chubby, overweight, uodate of a 57XX so it could do 57XX work even if it couldn't get to quite as many places.  And there were loads of 'em with low milage (or almost no milage at all for the ones stored at Barry for some years) so gradually they filtered through replacing older engines.   Yes the Newport division were rather fond of using them on passenger work but there were really far too many of them for them all to spend their lives on that sort of work so they would be sent where there was something (possibly anything as tme moved on) for them to do.

 

Does that help a bit?  Don't worry TDU wasn't being picked on - what happened in later years was as much a sign of the times as it was of anything else.

[doilum]

And that's the easy bit, pure GWR! ExplAin why a former LMS shed like Normanton was allocated ex LNER locos in order to run trains venturing east beyond Castleford. OK the J72 was to stay compliant with a strict weight restriction, but keeping a D49 to run the daily Scarborough train?

This might have the making of an interesting thread!

[The Stationmaster]

31 minutes ago, doilum said:

And that's the easy bit, pure GWR! ExplAin why a former LMS shed like Normanton was allocated ex LNER locos in order to run trains venturing east beyond Castleford. OK the J72 was to stay compliant with a strict weight restriction, but keeping a D49 to run the daily Scarborough train?

This might have the making of an interesting thread!

Things like Regional boundary changes had some very interesting effects - Normanton was but one of quite a number of former LMS sheds which ended up in North Eastern Region control so the new owners did some things their way.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Does that help a bit?

I'd say it does more than help a bit; it more or less explains how, and to a large extend why, the system worked, fully and completely, chapter and verse, as well as the changes brought about in the nitty gritty of it by dieselisation!  I had a fair idea about some of this stuff, but a lot of what you have explained is new to me, at least from the traffic department origin viewpoint, and very illuminating, especially that timetabling was at the root of allocation levels and the types of locos allocated; makes sense of course when you have it explained to you!  Thank you for taking the time to do this for me, Mike; I owe you a beer if we ever get to be able to go to shows again (and ChrisF for Tondu B set info and Tondu A30 auto numbers)!

 

Steam locos needed to be taken out of service every 10 working days for boiler washouts, which took  2 working days, which suggests that spares for each type of duty needed to be about 20% over and above what was needed for the traffic, and this does not allow for works visits or heavier maintenance done at the shed or at the main division shed, so I'm guessing that one would need about 25% of each type of loco (I don't mean each class, I mean broadly passenger, auto, goods, mineral, and pilot work at TDU). 

 

Taking autos as an example, between 1953 and 1958 the shed had to provide locos for auto services on the Blaengarw, Abergwynfi, and Porthcawl branches, with 6 auto fitted 4575s on the books.  If a quarter of those are likely to be out of service as mentioned above, you have to reckon that you will be two locos down on any given working day, so four auto fitted locos are available.  This sounds ok so long as only one loco is required for each branch, but the longer Abergwynfi branch's timetable probably needs two, and the others probably need more than one at peak times, so one begins to see why so many photos, particularly of Abergwynfi workings because that was the most photogenic terminus, show auto trailer hauled by 57xx or 8750 panniers.  TDU must have been better provided with auto trailers than locos to haul them even though the trains were 2 trailers or 3 trailer sandwiches.   The answer to how 4557 found work and what it was for is a little clearer,

 

Incidentally, Gloucester used 94xx with express headcodes on the Cheltenham-Gloucester part of Cheltenham-Paddington expresses, Castle hauled from Gloucester Central after changing direction, so it wasn't just Newport Division!  Of course you knew that and I shouldn't try to teach granny to suck eggs...

[DCB]

 
57xx/8750 were preferred to 94xx for mineral and shunting work, in many areas because the wide cab on the 94XX  meant the driver could not reach the brake when leaning out of the cab which was inconvenient to say the least for shunting. The 94XX was banned from many branch lines the 57XX was permitted on. 57XX was Blue RA and the 94xx Red with the 74XX Yellow and 16XX uncoloured until 1951 when the 57XX became yellow making the 94XX very much less versatile (and 74XX more or less pointless).  So while not especially suited to passenger trains, (they were timed at 60mph on  8 coach  trains deputising for 61XX in the Thames valley,) they were probably more suited to passenger work than anything else Tondu had to provide power for.  Its just a shame they built so many. 10 off 94XX and 10 off 15XX for Paddington ECS would have been ample.

 

 The 31xx was famous for is performance on the Porthawl trains,  Big no 4 boiler 5ft 3 wheels 225 lbs (?) pressure, 31 000 lbs tractive effort, it was quite a beast so the no 2 boiler 5ft 8"  wheel 200 lbs pressure 24 000 lbs TE 51XX wouldn’t have been able to match it (though good 42XX might have had a go, ) so there was little point in having the 51XX.

 

But what about 6762,   Probably they ordered too many and had to allocate it somewhere... It may well have had a set duty to reflect its lack of versatility.  Must have been frustrating for a shed master to have a shiny new 57XX which was restricted to goods and shunting.
 

4557 is another one; one sees no real use for it after the 1953 auto expansion;  It was probably redundant but hadn’t put in the mileage for overhaul/ withdrawal
 

The procedure within the loco department by which a locomotive was allocated to a shed was pretty hit and miss. For real chaos read  “Tales of GSWR in LMS days" by David L Smith.
I know Didcot at one time had four rostered duties for Grange class and no Granges allocated. Genius.

 Locos were withdrawn from service for overhaul or dismantling/scrapping on a mileage basis, For some classes this was planned for when they became due for overhaul, but with others they were withdrawn when the extent of the necessary repairs was realised especially badly cracked frames or a cracked cylinder block in the days before fancy welding.

 

 Others were reprieved and repaired due to locomotive shortages, Sometimes  there was a need to keep sufficient units available to cover certain duties. such as Dean Goods for diverted passengers over the Severn Bridge. 

 

Works were pretty adept at withdrawing a loco because they wanted its boiler for something else or just to top up the spare boiler pool, Doncaster used old 4-2-2 boilers on new J50s.  The LMS used a complicate procedure involving wildly exaggerated tales of clanking worn out locos submitted by shed masters while head office waited until in all probability every single part of the loco was completely life expired before shopping so they coud jack up the number plate and slide a new engine under it. The LNER repaired  LNER built Gresley/ Thompson locos when they broke down, quite often long before shopping was due. GC just kept going and the NER hung on to their Rolls Royce locos wisely avoiding the misery of L1s and enjoying lusty B16s instead of rate bang B1s.    Southern bought trains from Hornby at Binns Road and ran them on electricity on three rail track AFAIK.

 

Some trains had the same loco day after day for weeks at a time, the Fowey Auto train was one.   Others, like GC line expresses in the 1930s where one express could have five different classes employed in a few weeks, D11, C1,C4,B2,B3,B17 all allocated seemingly randomly and all running it to time.

Maybe you could justify a 94XX deputising for a failed Barry Std 3 2-6-2T on its daily visit  I don’t think this is pushing Rule 1 too far... But then again I run a Dean Goods and a 57XX on an express deputising for a D800 Warship
 

Edited January 26, 2021 by DavidCBroad

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I suspect you might be starting, or looking at it, from the wrng end of the telescope.    The need for a loco depot, and then its allocation of engines was driven largely by expected levels of treaffic and then the allocation was adjusted to reflect actual traffic demands.  Thos traffic demands were boiled down intoa  timetable (by the operating/traffic dept) who did their best to produce what the commercial depts said was needed or what they expected to be needed.

 

So as far as allocation of engines, and number of enginemen at a depot was concerned the nitty gritty started with the timetable.  On the GWR the CME's Dept took the timetable and calculated from it the most efficient and cost effective way of resourcing that timetable which led to them producing diagrams for the working of both engines and enginemen (the engine diagrams were done first then the men's working was built around and from the engine diagrams).  

 

There must have been some loco input into the timetable, or at least thought given to the loco working, to avoid producing, say, a timetable for a branch line that required two engines to work it when the level of traffic was such that only one would really be needed. My guess is that this would have been done way back in the 19th century and then cast in stone for evermore.

 

Equally, I get the impression that at least for larger sheds, in the 19th century there was a bit of "send ten engines from the latest batch of Class X to Shed Y and hope for the best".

 

I'm interested in how far practices of the late steam era can, or cannot, be mapped back onto earlier periods.

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Compound2632

[kevinlms]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There must have been some loco input into the timetable, or at least thought given to the loco working, to avoid producing, say, a timetable for a branch line that required two engines to work it when the level of traffic was such that only one would really be needed. My guess is that this would have been done way back in the 19th century and then cast in stone for evermore.

 

Equally, I get the impression that at least for larger sheds, in the 19th century there was a bit of "send ten engines from the latest batch of Class X to Shed Y and hope for the best".

 

I'm interested in how far practices of the late steam era can, or cannot, be mapped back onto earlier periods.

 

I was under the impression that some of these branches that really only needed 1 loco, had a gap in the public timetable. The idea was that the loco could be taken off the passenger service and made a return trip with a pick up goods, before returning to passenger duties.

Obviously a lot of factors, such as length of the line and traffic requirements. Perhaps a 3 loco service, with one taken off for freight duties. The permutations are endless.

[doilum]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

I was under the impression that some of these branches that really only needed 1 loco, had a gap in the public timetable. The idea was that the loco could be taken off the passenger service and made a return trip with a pick up goods, before returning to passenger duties.

Obviously a lot of factors, such as length of the line and traffic requirements. Perhaps a 3 loco service, with one taken off for freight duties. The permutations are endless.

If modellers followed this practice Hornby would be in trouble!!

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, doilum said:

If modellers followed this practice Hornby would be in trouble!!

 

Perhaps this is why Hornby in particular is obsessed with pacifics - if you model a line where such engines ran, one needs a different one for every train that passes.

[jointline]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

57xx/8750 were preferred to 94xx for mineral and shuitng work, in many areas because the wide cab on the 94XX  meant the driver could not reach the brake when leaning out of the cab which was inconveniet t say the least for shunting.

 

Talking off the top of my head.......but

Certainly have read this elsewhere about the  94xx class, in terms of being ergonomically imperfect!  Also have read that Hawksworth was keen to involve drivers in designing locomotives,  so something obviously went amiss here.   

The 94s were basically 22xxs with side tanks, so did the cab layout change I wonder, or did they use a tender engine cab layout for a tank engine without realising the implications.

[JimC]

I have the impression, compared to the LMS say, that almost all GWR locomotives were expected to serve passenger turns if needed, hence the rarity of locos with 3 link couplings and no vacuum brake (67xx and ROD in the 50s? ). And I wonder if this in turn is part of the GWR's relative reluctance with diesel shunters, as the early ones were simply too slow for such duties. Any comments people?

 

The first 94s with superheating seem intended as traffic locomotives, although they lost this with boiler changes. Alternatively perhaps they were just turned out with second hand boilers, which would have been superheated? On that topic, according to RCTS, it doesn't seem as if enough saturated Std 10 boilers were built to cover all the 94s and the 15s, so were there always a few superheated boilers among the 94s, or were some older boilers retubed without flue tubes? ISTR some 94s were built with GWR supplied boilers, and wonder if those were new or refurbished. 

 

An obvious difference between 5700 and 9400 is the firebox. I don't have numbers here, but wouldn't the Std 10 firebox have been wider than the P class? The 2251s were I think all screw reverse by the time the 94s came out, so that was one difference in the cab layout. 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by JimC

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 
57xx/8750 were preferred to 94xx for mineral and shuitng work, in many areas because the wide cab on the 94XX  meant the driver could not reach the brake when leaning out of the cab which was inconveniet t say the least for shunting

Good point and the likely explanation; I’d forgotten this.  

 

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The 94XX was banned from many branch lines the 57XX was permtted o

5 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The 31xx was famous for is performance on the Porthawl trains,  Big no 4 boiler 5ft 3 wheels it was quite a beast

The colour spot RA system ‘didn’t count’ in the Valleys, all locos could go anywhere.  
 

3100 was a bit of a thug, chosen for it’s ability to get away quickly from the main line stops and keep out of the way of the expresses.  The Porthcawl trains used the long vanished platform 5 at Cardiff General, the ghost of which can be seen in the shape of the canopy.  I probably saw 3100 as a child but don’t remember it.  I remember Platform 5, though, a double sided bat very handy for onloading parcels vans from both sides at once.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

18 minutes ago, JimC said:

I have the impression, compared to the LMS say, that almost all GWR locomotives were expected to serve passenger turns if needed, hence the rarity of locos with 3 link couplings and no vacuum brake (67xx and ROD in the 50s? ). And I wonder if this in turn is part of the GWR's relative reluctance with diesel shunters, as the early ones were simply too slow for such duties. Any comments people?

 

The first 94s with superheating seem intended as traffic locomotives, although they lost this with boiler changes. Alternatively perhaps they were just turned out with second hand boilers, which would have been superheated? On that topic, according to RCTS, it doesn't seem as if enough saturated Std 10 boilers were built to cover all the 94s and the 15s, so were there always a few superheated boilers among the 94s, or were some older boilers retubed without flue tubes? ISTR some 94s were built with GWR supplied boilers, and wonder if those were new or refurbished. 

The 67xx and 6750 classes were, TTBOMK, the only locomotives the GW ever built specifically for shunting duties, and the policy was that all the locomotives could pull any of the trains if needed, even the 15xx. 

Of course, many panniers spent their lives shunting and we think of them as shunting engines, and some may have gone years without the vacuum bags ever being taken off the dummy brackets, but they were’t really shunting locos. 57xx and 8750s in  post war days when they had been given yellow route availability hauled corridor stock on Newport-Brecon services that took the best part of 3 hours journey time; a far cry from shunting and a tough job on the banks!

 

No.10 boilers were around in quantity to cover the 2251 class and the various absorbed rebuilt locos they were originally designed for.  It may well be that some boilers supplied by Swindon to the contractors building the ‘production’94xx were not new but from the Swindon boilershop pool.  The 94xx and 15xx had such short working lives in many cases that they were withdrawn from service with their original boilers still fitted; there was not much opportunity for the superheated 9400-09 boilers to be disseminated among the fleet or to 2251s (which might have been interesting).  By the 60s, only 6 years after the last 94xx were delivered, locos withdrawn were sold off to scrap merchants and cut up rather than dismantled and the boilers refurbished and returned to the pool at Swindon. 
 

 

[JimC]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

No.10 boilers were around in quantity to cover the 2251 class and the various absorbed rebuilt locos they were originally designed for.  It may well be that some boilers supplied by Swindon to the contractors building the ‘production’94xx were not new but from the Swindon boilershop pool.  The 94xx and 15xx had such short working lives in many cases that they were withdrawn from service with their original boilers still fitted;

 

We covered this topic recently in a digression on a thread about the Rapido 15xx which I don't think you participated in. 

There were, as I expect you know, two types of Std 10, the KA and KB. KA were the original superheated ones on all the absorbed classes and the 2251s.  KB were the unsuperheated ones for the 94s and 15s.  According to RCTS 215 KB boilers were constructed. There were 10 GWR built 94s, 200 outsourced 94s and 10 1500s. So that suggests that there were never enough saturated KB boilers to go round the 94s, so it seems likely a few always had KA boilers unless any KA boilers were converted to be non superheated. Presumably there was a good supply of  KA boilers in the 50s as pre group locomotives were withdrawn with boilers that would have had life left. I'm told, incidentally that the 15s all had at least two boiler changes, and that 9400-9 all had KB boilers when withdrawn, so while the last 94s might not have had boiler changes the early ones definitely did.

 

If anyone has access to the records for 9400-9 it would be interesting to know the boilers they had when turned out. The numbers ought to let us know whether they were new or reused. Similarly the 94s which had GW supplied boilers, but unfortunately I'm locked down away from my records and can't look up which ones they were. 

[Miss Prism]

Cab layouts can be compared: 2251 and 94xx

 

[The Stationmaster]

38 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Cab layouts can be compared: 2251 and 94xx

 

I think you'll find the vacuum brake handle on the 9466  is a preservation modernisation to make it reachable from a normal driving position.  The ldifficulty reaching the brake handle was one of the big complaints when it came to the 94XXs

[DCB]

The GWR did seem to work on the basis that all locos should be able to work both passenger and god's trains, and do a bit of shunting.   The GW had a lot of mixed duties, out with a goods, back on passenger, or goods one way, shunt for a while and passenger back.  Or one loco on a branch hauling all the trains passenger, gods and mixed.

The former MSWJR had turn with express passenger one way and through freight back operated by 43XX and Manors in late GW days.

Swindon works shunters also did workmans passenger to Cirencester, Marlborough, Purton, Hghworth etc followed by shunting the works followed by taking the workmans trains back again

Edited January 30, 2021 by DavidCBroad
Typo

[br2975]

Johnster - Tondu duties, circa 1958.

.

I hope this is of use to you in some way ?

.

Brian R

 

 

Canton duty H2 worked Penarth Curve North - Tondu dep. 2:50am MX, 3:40am MO

.

Barry duties B13, B29, B34 and B40 all worked to Coity Junction (some doing double trips), perhaps you can 'engineer' a Barry loco into your scheme ?

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by br2975

[The Johnster]

Thanks Brian; this is a repeat of information I had some time ago from Chris Foren, but with the addition of the Barry duties and H2.  Much appreciated!

 

There's already a Rule 1 Barry loco working to Cwmdimbath in order to feature an 82xxx, one of my favourite locos; at Glynogwr Jc a few yards on to the Dimbath branch is a private siding serving the Home and Commonwealth Mail Order Store Company's distribution depot built recently here with a Government grant.  The loco works a passenger train over the Vale of Glamorgan to Bridgend, picks up empty NPCCS for H & C, and exchanges it for loaded  at Glynogwr, but has to come up to Cwmdimbath to run around.  Tondu men relieve the Barry crew at Bridgend and work from Glynogwr via Cwmdimbath to run around, and run to Cardiff, where they are relieved by a different set of Barry men and come home on the cushions, the Barry relief  picking up an evening Clarence Road-Cadoxtonvia Penarth working.

 

There may in future be similar Rule 1 through loco diagrams from Dyffryn Yard, probably coal trains, as these can utilise the unfinished kits I have for a Rhymney R and Rebuilt Taff A.  There were some exotica on the real Tondu branches with photographs in the Hodges/Davies books; BR Standard 4MT 2-6-4T 80133 worked a Neath-Porthcawl excursion on 3/6/63 and then worked the same stock (corridor mk1s) as the return leg of an excursion from Blaengwynfi, ecs to Neath via R&SB.  This loco also worked the evening commuter from Swansea H.S. on the 8th.  In September '62 Fowler 2-6-4T 42388, with LMS stock to boot, worked this train. 

 

These 2-6-4T workings are photographed at Porthcawl in the Hodges/Davies book, 80133 at Heol y Sheet, Maesteg, and in the Afan Valley as well.  The locos were xfer to Landore when Paxton Street closed in '58, and xfer to Court Sart when Landore closed in '61 to be rebuilt as a diesel depot.  I've seen a shot of a Fowler 2-6-4T on a Swansea-Porthcawl at Port Talbot somewhere as well.  Bonkers, innit?

 

Stay safe, mate.  ATB.

[br2975]

John,

.

Are you happy with the accuracy of the allocation records to which you refer ?

e.g.

67xx pannier, 6762

.

You have it as 'new' to Tondu in 1948, and remaining there until around 1959.

This is confirmed at:- 

https://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=6762&loco=6762

.

But the site also refers to SLS (Stephenson Locomotive Society)  information, which suggests  6762 left Tondu for Danygraig after but only few months, in March 1949.

.

The SLS information is confirmed by Ian Allan Locoshed books throughout the 1950s, which also show 6762 as being allocated to Danygraig, not Tondu.

.

Similarly, BR Database also refers to three 350hp diesel shunters being on Tondu's books from new, namely 13188 - 13190 (D3188-D3190)

.

However, all other records I have found indicate these three went new to Severn Tunnel Junction 86E, not Tondu 86F and this to is supported by IA publications.

.

In addition, the BR Database list suggests those three 350hp shunters moved from Tondu 86F to Ebbw Junction in 1968.

.

I would argue that if the 1968 date is correct, that was the date the three shunters moved from STJ to Ebbw Junction, as official WR records have them so allox on 31st December, 1968.

.

It may be that some records are 'not quite right' and have had us 'barking up the wrong tree ?'

.

Over to you.

.

Brian R

 

.

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by br2975

[melmerby]

16 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The GWR did seem to work on the basis that all locos should be able to work both passenger and gods trains, a

Very appropriate typo for God's Wonderful Railway

[melmerby]

Re: 6762

Hugh Longworth's Loco Allocations volume (OPC) lists 6762 at Danygraig all through the '50s until it moved to Swansea ED where it was listed on 1st Jan 1960.

 

He references about a dozen sources including IA's ABC volumes and some electronic lists but not BR Database!

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, br2975 said:

John,

.

Are you happy with the accuracy of the allocation records to which you refer ?

e.g.

67xx pannier, 6762

.

You have it as 'new' to Tondu in 1948, and remaining there until around 1959.

This is confirmed at:- 

https://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=6762&loco=6762

.

But the site also refers to SLS (Stephenson Locomotive Society)  information, which suggests  6762 left Tondu for Danygraig after but only few months, in March 1949.

.

The SLS information is confirmed by Ian Allan Locoshed books throughout the 1950s, which also show 6762 as being allocated to Danygraig, not Tondu.

.

Similarly, BR Database also refers to three 350hp diesel shunters being on Tondu's books from new, namely 13188 - 13190 (D3188-D3190)

.

However, all other records I have found indicate these three went new to Severn Tunnel Junction 86E, not Tondu 86F and this to is supported by IA publications.

.

In addition, the BR Database list suggests those three 350hp shunters moved from Tondu 86F to Ebbw Junction in 1968.

.

I would argue that if the 1968 date is correct, that was the date the three shunters moved from STJ to Ebbw Junction, as official WR records have them so allox on 31st December, 1968.

.

It may be that some records are 'not quite right' and have had us 'barking up the wrong tree ?'

.

Over to you.

.

Brian R

 

.

 

These are pertinent and valid points, Brian; perhaps your old day job enables you to be more discerning and less trusting than me when it comes to gathering evidence!

 

I suspect it is very unlikely that the three 350 hp diesels ever went to Tondu, as I cannot accept that Hodges/Davies would have ignored such a thing had it really happened, but have only recently downloaded the books.  Early use of 08s were concentrated on large marshalling yards, and while you might describe Ogmore Yard as such, you wouldn’t desribe it as particularly large.  So, no diesels at Tondu in the 50s! 
 

Looks like 6762 is still a viable loco for Tondu and scrapes in to my nominal time frame of 1948-58, so I’ll keep that one as is.  It was actually new to Tondu in 1946, so my model is in G W R ‘initials livery but has BR smokebox number and shedcode plates. 
 

I try to get it right but don’t claim total success.  The policy is to use the information I have, including my interpretation of the best guess if the information is inadequate or can’t be validated, and correct it if or when better information becomes available.  Hodges/Davies has come up with a wealth of stuff I did not know previously, but conflicts with previous evidence.  
 

There are anomalies. Hodges/Davies mentions that 4144 arrived new in 1946 in company with with 3100, which was the regular Porthcawl-Cardiff commuter loco when the service was reinstated after being suspended during a period of German foreign policy which had some impact in the UK, and remained at TDU until the Porthcawl branch closed.  BR database, citing SLS, states that 4144 was allox new to TDU 31/10/46, but xfer STJ 22/03/47, returning to TDU 07/09/57.  Still within my period, but it makes a GWR livery very unlikely (It is the subject of my new Hornby, in unicycling lion unlined black).  
 

RailUK confused matters by suggesting that 4145 was at TDU at nationalisation and xfer Canton 31/3/48, but no longer displays the full allocation information; I no longer trust this site in cases where it conflicts with BR database, which is itself not 100% accurate (nothing is of course, even photos may be attributed to incorrect dates). 
 

Hodges/Davies has several photos of 4144 doing TDU work, and she is cover girl on one of the books, but none dated prior to 07/09/57.  
 

Of my bakers’ dozen locos, I am certain of all my panniers in the livery I have them; 2761, 5707 (sans topfeed, a lucky guess confirmed by Hodges/Davies), 5756, 6762, 8448, and 9649.  5633, 6624, & 6642 are guesstimations, 4144 and 4218 are confirmed, as is Barry’s 82001.  Forest no.1 in the colliery is pure Rule 1, along with ‘Cyclops’, a Triang dokafority that will pull a house down.  Running anomalies are inevitable; 2761 and 8448 should not appear together for example, and my policy of deliberately going for the widest possible livery variation, one of the reasons for setting this particular nominal period, doesn’t exactly help!

 

Philou’s donated 1854 is to be 1740, which lasted until 1950, but I have no idea in which livery or condition.  I’m going to paint her Caerphilly Austerity black with grotesque initials, with a 57xx cab unless someone comes up with better info. 
 

My autos are correct in that the A30s are confirmed by Chris Foren, who I trust in such matters, and the K’s A31s are correct Newport Division but Rule 1 punts at TDU. My new A44 is confirmed, and future plans include Roxey Clifton Downs W 3338 W confirmed by Hodges/Davies 1953-4.  My loco hauled passenger stock is evidence of a less disciplined approach, but a recently arrived Comet E147 B set will be correctly numbered with info from Chris. 
 

Which leads to another anomaly and an assumption, first class.  Hodges/Davies states that TDU’s Valleys services were 2nd class only, which is at odds with the presence of E147s, which are indeed not mentioned in the books.  I also have incorrect Hornby 57’ Collett suburbans, including a composite.  So, invoking Rule 1, I have decided that TDU’s loco hauled valleys services did provide 1st class until the implementation of the regular interval timetable in 1953, which brought auto trains to Tondu.  
 

Any comments or further info will be welcome, particularly appertaining to 56xx liveries at TDU 1948-58 and 4mm grotesque lettering. 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by The Johnster

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Re: 6762

Hugh Longworth's Loco Allocations volume (OPC) lists 6762 at Danygraig all through the '50s until it moved to Swansea ED where it was listed on 1st Jan 1960.

 

He references about a dozen sources including IA's ABC volumes and some electronic lists but not BR Database!

 

BR Database takes all the information from published books. Mostly from the ABCs, RCTS and Yeadons.

 

It's a one man project to put it all the information in one place. It clearly states on the home page that it's incomplete and there will be errors.

 

That's why you should always check as many sources as you can.

 

Some should also be taken with a massive pinch of salt. The "What Happened To Steam" books for example. Not the fault of the author. I'm sure we'll all got a few of them, as they used to be cheap at preserved railway book shops. Basically a list of locomotives of a certain type (say GWR 4-6-0s) with final allocations, withdrawal and scrapping information.

 

There was a case where so called enthusiasts were giving false information to the magazines in the late 1960s. The scrapping information being particularly compromised.

 

Worth reading the articles that was published in Railway Magazine.

 

https://www.whatreallyhappenedtosteam.co.uk/

 

Peter Hands later tried to do it again with proper sources.

 

https://www.whathappenedtosteam.com/

 

 

Jason